SWETAPADMA SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis and subsequently whose services were regularised after completion of six years, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 21/9/2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 3422 (C) of 2012, wherein, instead of extending the benefit as prayed for by the petitioner in the Original Application, direction has been given to the opposite parties to examine with regard to applicability of the circular dtd. 4/4/2007 in the case of the petitioner, which was exclusively applicable to job contract and work charged employees. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the opposite parties to extend the benefit by treating the period of her service from the date of her initial engagement against a substantive vacancy of Junior Engineer and bring her to the fold of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 and General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules, 1938 and grant all consequential benefits, as due and admissible to her, in accordance with law.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Government of Odisha in the Department of Planning and Coordination issued a circular, vide memo no. 684 (64) dtd. 18/1/1972, to all Departments of Government/Heads of the Department that Government have been pleased to direct to follow the procedure to be adopted with immediate effect until further orders in absorbing Engineering Personnel in various posts lying vacant in each departments. It was further instructed that employment of Engineering Personnel, i.e., Graduate Engineer and Diploma Engineer should be made year-wise in order of merit. All candidates of particular year have to be absorbed first before candidates of the following years are considered. The Planning and Coordination Department will continue to maintain register of these candidates and on receipt of requisitions for filling up of posts under various departments, the Planning and Coordination Department should recommend the names of the candidates as many as four times of the vacancies. Recruitment to all posts, i.e., Junior Engineer, Sub-Assistant Engineer, Surveyor, Tracer, Draftsman, Embankment Inspector and Work Sarkar has to be made through those departments as was being made earlier.

(3.) Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacant post on contractual basis on 7/7/2003 and, thereafter, she was brought to the regular establishment in the year 2009, but the Works Department issued a letter on 16/3/2012 stating therein that the contractual Junior Engineers, who were appointed prior to 1/1/2005 and subsequently absorbed in regular establishment on or after 1/1/2005, will not be governed under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the circular issued on 4/4/2007 will not be applicable to the case of Junior Engineers appointed on contractual basis. Such letter dtd. 16/3/2012 is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. He further contended that since the petitioner was appointed by following due procedure of law and on being sponsored by the selection committee from out of the panel as per the rules and guidelines issued from time to time and continuously discharging her responsibility assigned to her, the OCS (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2005 has no application because her appointment was made prior to 1/1/2005 against a substantive vacancy and subsequently brought over to the regular establishment. It is further contended that after bringing the petitioner to the regular establishment, GPF Account was opened and the petitioner was also contributing to the said GPF Account. But all of a sudden by issuing a circular the same has been stopped. Therefore, the opposite parties have committed gross illegality and irregularity by not allowing the petitioner to continue under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, as it was applicable to the employees appointed prior to 1/1/2005. The Tribunal, while passing the order impugned, would have taken into consideration this aspect and decided the same, instead of remitting back the matter to the Government for reconsideration. As such, the Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record, for which the petitioner has challenged the same in the present writ petition.